There were a few that looked real prospects - our number 3 stood out too.
Was that Zemura? I thought he looked promising on another streamed game a year or two ago. Looked like he could develop into a good attacking full back.
All the photos used by Charlton last night were mine! No one has signed pro's yet, no one will sign one early in my opinion, they will either get what or not. Surprised nobody has compared Alfie's goal to the recent Rooney goal as last night was better! A number have been involved in the U23s this season, the attack is the strongest part of the U23s side & this is why they have struggled to get in. This side could go all the way, so so proud of them, no understatement they are amazing. Friendly at Sparrows on Saturday vs Portsmouth. Karl was there last night, he admits to our problems/mistakes and never hides. The referee killed game on Saturday, I think he should have our full support! Believe in the youngsters
Err, I mentioned WR in my post last night.....
Regarding young guns to watch, the commentators last night picked out Sarpong-Wiredu for special mention on several occasions , as did Robbo at the recent Bromley Addicks' meeting.
Pen was very harsh but we should have had one earlier so nobody can complain. And Doughty got booked for diving to boot! I do think some refs don't really understand the laws of the game though. Hand ball has to be deliberate! I manage an U17s side and some refs never give handball on one extreme and some give it in the most ridiculous scenarios on the other. Look at the Northern Ireland game as an example. How can any reasonable person deem that to be intentional?
Hand to ball .....Handball is an offence only when the hand moves towards the ball.
It's not necessarily about intent - handball can be given even if you're falling or trying to regain balance, if your hand/arm is moving as the hand touches the ball.
Ball to hand .... if the ball strikes the hand without the hand moving (point blank contact, ricochet or deflection for example), no offence has been committed.
From what I saw there was an upward movement by the hand/arm towards the ball, it changed it's trajectory about 90 degrees, and also prevented the ball from reaching a Charlton player. Not a harsh penalty, a penalty, and the ref was closer to the incident than 90% of the players too.
I have to say that was (other than the odd goalkeeper clearances) the furthest distance shot at goal I have ever seen go in. He was half way into his own half!
Pen was very harsh but we should have had one earlier so nobody can complain. And Doughty got booked for diving to boot! I do think some refs don't really understand the laws of the game though. Hand ball has to be deliberate! I manage an U17s side and some refs never give handball on one extreme and some give it in the most ridiculous scenarios on the other. Look at the Northern Ireland game as an example. How can any reasonable person deem that to be intentional?
Hand to ball .....Handball is an offence only when the hand moves towards the ball.
It's not necessarily about intent - handball can be given even if you're falling or trying to regain balance, if your hand/arm is moving as the hand touches the ball.
Ball to hand .... if the ball strikes the hand without the hand moving (point blank contact, ricochet or deflection for example), no offence has been committed.
This may have been true a few years ago - but not now
I have to say that was (other than the odd goalkeeper clearances) the furthest distance shot at goal I have ever seen go in. He was half way into his own half!
Pen was very harsh but we should have had one earlier so nobody can complain. And Doughty got booked for diving to boot! I do think some refs don't really understand the laws of the game though. Hand ball has to be deliberate! I manage an U17s side and some refs never give handball on one extreme and some give it in the most ridiculous scenarios on the other. Look at the Northern Ireland game as an example. How can any reasonable person deem that to be intentional?
Hand to ball .....Handball is an offence only when the hand moves towards the ball.
It's not necessarily about intent - handball can be given even if you're falling or trying to regain balance, if your hand/arm is moving as the hand touches the ball.
Ball to hand .... if the ball strikes the hand without the hand moving (point blank contact, ricochet or deflection for example), no offence has been committed.
This may have been true a few years ago - but not now
"Regarding handball they now ask the referee to consider the proximity of the potential offender to the person last playing the ball, the speed of the ball and importantly whether the offender's arms are in a natural or unnatural position.
So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him?"
Thanks for posting that link, Muttley ...... and now you've exposed yourself as a Daily Mail reader *shakes head in disbelief*
;o)
Seriously, the 'ball to hand' element still applies - the only change in interpretation is to include, "did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him?"
If so, that now assumes an act of 'intent' in the interpretation of the law - therefore an offence is committed should the ball strike the hand. Some players will try every trick they can get away with, so can't argue with that on the face of it - although very unfair on a defender in his own box if the referee makes a wrong assumption.
I knew the interpretation of the law and googled an explanation for here, unfortunately the Mail link was the first to come up! It is probably a notable article for being one of the few things from the Daily Mail which is true! My theory is that some refs overthink the unnatural position bit and try to interpret what an unnatural position is, when it surely and simply was intended to mean intentional when it was written.
Like some players try to seek an unfair advantage, some referees may find it simpler to just assume all ball to hand incidents are deliberate and penalise the player anyway.
I suppose it's not much different to many fans expecting a penalty to be awarded every time there's a ball to hand incident, regardless of circumstance?
Comments
Regarding young guns to watch, the commentators last night picked out Sarpong-Wiredu for special mention on several occasions , as did Robbo at the recent Bromley Addicks' meeting.
It's not necessarily about intent - handball can be given even if you're falling or trying to regain balance, if your hand/arm is moving as the hand touches the ball.
Ball to hand .... if the ball strikes the hand without the hand moving (point blank contact, ricochet or deflection for example), no offence has been committed.
Not a harsh penalty, a penalty, and the ref was closer to the incident than 90% of the players too.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/138705977@N04/albums/72157689526827281
Cheers!
He was half way into his own half!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2284201/GRAHAM-POLL--The-Official-Line-The-new-handball-rule-explained-Newcastle-got-lucky-Fox-penalty.html
So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him?"
Thanks for posting that link, Muttley ...... and now you've exposed yourself as a Daily Mail reader *shakes head in disbelief*
;o)
Seriously, the 'ball to hand' element still applies - the only change in interpretation is to include, "did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him?"
If so, that now assumes an act of 'intent' in the interpretation of the law - therefore an offence is committed should the ball strike the hand.
Some players will try every trick they can get away with, so can't argue with that on the face of it - although very unfair on a defender in his own box if the referee makes a wrong assumption.
Like some players try to seek an unfair advantage, some referees may find it simpler to just assume all ball to hand incidents are deliberate and penalise the player anyway.
I suppose it's not much different to many fans expecting a penalty to be awarded every time there's a ball to hand incident, regardless of circumstance?
And if they win that they could have Spurs.
http://www.thefa.com/news/2018/jan/12/fa-youth-cup-fifth-round-draw-120118
Strange though as the West Brom site like you say has the Chelsea game on the 17th... Maybe the FA know something?